The Illusionist is actually more than anything an actor's movie, which is a little ironic considering how much romantic sweep and movement there should be in the writing and directing. In terms of Neil Burger's direction, it's never really bad at all, and is very competent most of the time (aside from a couple of notable instances involving the 'soft focus' around the edges of the frame in flashbacks and one sex scene). The writing, however, is a little more lacking even if it's also never annoying or deterring from what's watchable in the film. But there's contrivances as well, through all that is supposed to be seen as complex and very intricate and exquisite. The latter of those can be tapped into in the period setting of early 20th century Vienna, and it's always professionally done. But there's something lacking to it as well- a real driving force through the romantic core of the story, and that supporting characters are more interesting than the main characters, almost in spite of the performances.
And as mentioned, if there's any reason more than anything to see it it's for the acting, where Edward Norton makes a character who's own purpose and need in the film is very narrow (to make his illusions, but more than anything all for the possession and togetherness of another woman, played by Jessica Biel). As a child he, Eisenheim, and Sophie meet and fall in love, but are separated by the boundaries of class. Years pass, and she comes back into his life by chance, but now she has a suitor, a Prince played by the icy Rufus Sewell. When a certain tragedy befalls the situation of the Prince and his bride-to-be, this sets Eisenheim off into a whole new direction with his illusions (Norton often in a trembling, shocked trance look that is always convincing) by conjuring up lost souls. This the sets off Paul Giamatti's inspector character, and the ties become all the greater to what may become of the central question, however elusive it might seem.
All of this might be even more compelling if the actual romantic plot felt stronger. But despite the impeccable skills of Norton, who makes this bland character driven and intuitive (his choices as an actor are very good here if not great), and the OK presence of Biel, their characters aren't as interesting as the tricks and leap-of-faith sized wonders that Eisenheim creates on the stage. If anything at times the film felt stronger and with a better purpose and strength with Giamatti on screen, as he is more than anything the part of the audience, trying to figure things out. By the end his own revelation is probably the biggest leap of all, almost Shyamalan-sized, yet I find his performance is what sticks with me as opposed to the twists and surprises thrown to the audience. It's almost as if the iron-clad conventions of the plot and the intensity, passion and creativity of what goes on in Eisenheim's total control battle it out for dominance. I'd recommend the Illusionist, but with some reservations that not the spectacular event that it might seem to be. Its got skill and tact and a very fine sensibility with Norton and Giamatti and even the dastardly done Prince by Sewell. Though at the same time it's really got nothing up its sleeve. Grade: B
And as mentioned, if there's any reason more than anything to see it it's for the acting, where Edward Norton makes a character who's own purpose and need in the film is very narrow (to make his illusions, but more than anything all for the possession and togetherness of another woman, played by Jessica Biel). As a child he, Eisenheim, and Sophie meet and fall in love, but are separated by the boundaries of class. Years pass, and she comes back into his life by chance, but now she has a suitor, a Prince played by the icy Rufus Sewell. When a certain tragedy befalls the situation of the Prince and his bride-to-be, this sets Eisenheim off into a whole new direction with his illusions (Norton often in a trembling, shocked trance look that is always convincing) by conjuring up lost souls. This the sets off Paul Giamatti's inspector character, and the ties become all the greater to what may become of the central question, however elusive it might seem.
All of this might be even more compelling if the actual romantic plot felt stronger. But despite the impeccable skills of Norton, who makes this bland character driven and intuitive (his choices as an actor are very good here if not great), and the OK presence of Biel, their characters aren't as interesting as the tricks and leap-of-faith sized wonders that Eisenheim creates on the stage. If anything at times the film felt stronger and with a better purpose and strength with Giamatti on screen, as he is more than anything the part of the audience, trying to figure things out. By the end his own revelation is probably the biggest leap of all, almost Shyamalan-sized, yet I find his performance is what sticks with me as opposed to the twists and surprises thrown to the audience. It's almost as if the iron-clad conventions of the plot and the intensity, passion and creativity of what goes on in Eisenheim's total control battle it out for dominance. I'd recommend the Illusionist, but with some reservations that not the spectacular event that it might seem to be. Its got skill and tact and a very fine sensibility with Norton and Giamatti and even the dastardly done Prince by Sewell. Though at the same time it's really got nothing up its sleeve. Grade: B